Why are we still trapping and killing wolves and coyotes during the sixth mass extinction crisis?

 

A wolf leaves Yellowstone National Park. It follows the scent of elk, crosses an invisible boundary and enters Montana. Nothing in the landscape tells it that the rules have changed. Yet an animal protected and studied inside the park can now legally be shot or trapped. We call Yellowstone’s wolf restoration a conservation triumph. Why, then, do we permit the killing of the very animals we worked so hard to bring back?

Murdering wolves is the antithesis to conservation.

In 1995, gray wolves returned to Yellowstone after decades of absence following their extermination from the region. Their restoration became one of America’s most celebrated conservation achievements. But the protections surrounding these animals remain fragmented. Yellowstone’s wolves regularly move beyond park boundaries, particularly when following migrating elk. They cannot distinguish a protected landscape from a hunting district. We have created an unfair playing field, and then we congratulate ourselves when the wolf loses.

In February 2021, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte trapped and shot a radio-collared wolf known as 1155M, approximately 10 miles north of Yellowstone. The wolf had been born inside the park and collared by wildlife biologists. Gianforte had a valid wolf license but had not completed the required wolf-trapping certification course. State wildlife officials issued him a written warning. The governor subsequently completed the course. His actions were widely reported, but the larger question extends beyond one public official: What does it say about our conservation priorities when animals tracked for scientific research can be legally killed just outside the landscapes established to protect them?

The consequences are measurable. According to Yellowstone’s 2022 Wolf Project report, approximately 19 percent of wolves primarily using the park were killed during the 2021–22 hunting season. Researchers also documented changes in pack structure, including the dissolution of two packs. Although Yellowstone’s year-end wolf population increased, a population count alone cannot capture the disruption of family groups, the loss of breeding animals or the consequences for long-term research.

Why are we still trapping and killing wolves and coyotes during the sixth mass extinction crisis? At a time when humanity should be repairing the ecosystems it has fragmented, we continue to target native predators for fulfilling their ecological roles. An international scientific assessment estimates that approximately one million animal and plant species face extinction threats. Habitat destruction, exploitation, climate change and pollution are unraveling ecological relationships around the world. Yet our approach to predators too often reflects an older belief that nature must be controlled rather than understood.

Wolves are keystone predators. They are the gatekeepers of biodiversity, helping maintain the intricate relationships among wildlife species, ecosystems and habitats. Their presence influences prey populations, supports scavengers and can contribute to vegetation recovery and the restoration of wildlife habitats. Coyotes also perform important ecological functions, including regulating smaller mammals and sustaining food webs. These native predators are not obstacles to conservation. They are integral to the ecological systems we claim to protect.

The documentary How Wolves Change Rivers brought the concept of trophic cascades to a broad audience, showing how predators can influence entire ecological communities. Some of its claims, particularly those involving river channels, remain scientifically debated. Yellowstone’s recovery is shaped by many factors, including climate, vegetation, water and other wildlife. But that complexity strengthens the case for humility. We still have much to learn about the consequences of removing predators from functioning ecosystems.

Ranchers can suffer real financial losses when wolves or coyotes kill livestock. Wildlife managers must also consider public safety and local ecological conditions. But acknowledging these concerns does not require accepting recreational predator killing as a conservation necessity. Nonlethal approaches, including range riders, livestock guardian animals and improved fencing, can reduce some conflicts. Their effectiveness varies, and they require sustained investment. That is a challenge worth meeting.

We should also distinguish the temporary capture of wildlife for scientific monitoring from lethal trapping. Research collars help scientists understand migration, survival and family structure. Killing an animal for recreation serves a fundamentally different purpose.

We have converted vast landscapes into agricultural operations, highways and housing developments, then blamed wildlife for attempting to survive in the remaining fragments of its ancestral habitat. Rather than continually demanding that predators surrender their lives to accommodate human expansion, shouldn’t we be asking how human activities can change to accommodate the natural world?

The issue is not whether every wolf or coyote population is endangered. Coyotes remain widespread, and wolf populations differ substantially across regions. The question is whether wildlife policy adequately values predators’ ecological functions, social relationships and contributions to healthy habitats. Abundance alone does not make an animal disposable.

State wildlife agencies should strengthen protections for wolves that routinely cross Yellowstone’s boundaries, evaluate the ecological effects of lethal trapping and expand funding for coexistence programs. They should also make the scientific basis for predator-killing policies transparent to the public. Conservation should be judged not merely by how many animals remain alive, but by whether their populations can fulfill their ecological roles.

What are we teaching younger generations when killing a wolf becomes an occasion for applause? A rifle does not make a human ecologically superior to a predator. Neither does a photograph of its lifeless body. Wolves hunt to survive and feed their young. They communicate, cooperate and maintain intricate family relationships. Their value exists independently of our approval.

We cannot proclaim our love for wilderness while treating its inhabitants as disposable trophies. We cannot claim to be guardians of biodiversity while dismantling the relationships that sustain it. We have made the rules, drawn the boundaries and equipped ourselves with the weapons. The wolf has only its instincts, its family and its will to live.

If we are responsible for creating the conditions that endanger wolves, shouldn’t we also be responsible for protecting their right to exist?

Sources and References

1. National Park Service: Yellowstone Wolf Management

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/management/wolf.htm

2. National Park Service: 2022 Yellowstone Wolf Project Annual Report

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/upload/2022-Web-Wolf-Report.pdf

3. Mountain West News Bureau, March 23, 2021: Montana Governor Given Written Warning After Trapping, Killing of Yellowstone Wolf

https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2021-03-23/montana-governor-given-written-warning-after-trapping-killing-of-yellowstone-wolf

4. Montana Public Radio, March 24, 2021: Gianforte Takes Wolf Trapping Course Following Warning

https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2021-03-24/gianforte-takes-wolf-trapping-course-following-warning

5. IPBES: 2019 Global Biodiversity Assessment

https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment

6. National Park Service: Yellowstone Wolf Ecology

https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf.htm

7. USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Wildlife Services

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife-services

Christine Villabona-Kuntz is the founder of Pure Trixie Productions, an independent conservation media initiative focused on biodiversity, wildlife protection and ecological restoration.